Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
Chester argued that sending leaders to Lutheran/Baptist universities led them to absorb “state church concepts,” leaving Mennonites “without a substantial theological foundation for resisting Nazism”; what kinds of training (formal education, media ecosystems, political discipleship, conferences) are shaping pastors and families today, and how can a church evaluate whether those influences are rebuilding—or eroding—two-kingdom clarity?
Another way to ask: What kinds of training and influence are shaping pastors and families today (schools, media, politics, conferences)? How can a church tell if those influences strengthen—or weaken—clear thinking about God’s kingdom vs. the world’s kingdom?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Chester’s transcript focuses on formal theological training as a pipeline that quietly reshapes a church’s instincts, especially toward church-state cooperation. A church can evaluate training influences by asking whether they strengthen obedience to Christ as ultimate authority and reinforce the Anabaptist “no organic connection” between God’s kingdom and the world’s power.
- He explains Mennonites wanted “trained preachers” and sent them to “Lutheran and Baptist universities.”
- His principle: “when you send your men off to be educated, they absorb the concepts of the institution.”
- He quotes that these pastors “encouraged church-state cooperation,” leaving Mennonites “without a substantial theological foundation for resisting Nazism.”
- He connects this directly to two-kingdom erosion: losing the distinction “legitimized participation in the Nazi state.”
- He describes the end result: Mennonites reassured the public their “pacifism was dead and buried” and performed “military duties without any qualifications.”